R03 37

Annual
environmental
incidents and
enforcement
report
for the period 1 July 2002
- 30 June 2003
Report No. R03/37

ISBN 1-86937-515-7
Annual environmental incidents and enforcement report for the period 1 July 2002 - 30 June 2003
Foreword
Environment Canterbury is responsible for promoting the sustainable management of natural

and physical resources in Canterbury. A critical part of this is responding to environmental
incidents and taking enforcement action where necessary. Environment Canterbury’s
Enforcement Unit carries out this role. This report prepared for the Enforcement Unit
describes positive professional incident response in tandem with firm, fair and consistent
enforcement practices. This has been evident in the incidents where the involvement of the
Enforcement Unit has resulted in positive environmental outcomes. On behalf of councillors
and the wider community we wish to record our gratitude and appreciation of the
Enforcement Unit for their professionalism and dedication.
Richard Johnson Sir Kerry Burke Bill Penno

CHAIRMAN REGULATORY COMMITTEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN CHAIRMAN
Environment Canterbury Report 1

Acknowledgements
The report has been prepared for Environment Canterbury by Simon Johnson with
contributions from Bob Simpson and the Enforcement Unit and editing from Mike Freeman,
Evan Walker, Bob Simpson and Ken Taylor.
2 Environment Canterbury Report

Table of Contents
Foreword 1
Acknowledgements....................................................................................... 2
1 Introduction 5
1.1 Environmental enforcement.............................................................................5
1.2 The annual environmental incidents and enforcement report..........................5
1.3 The Enforcement Unit and the Pollution Hotline..............................................5
1.4 Incident response and investigation procedures..............................................9
1.5 Waterways and water quality ........................................................................10
2 Significant investigations......................................................................... 11
2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................11
2.2 Operation “Sshh” - survey of water take compliance in South Canterbury....11
2.3 Operation “Sshh” Mark II - proactive investigation into water take compliance
in North Canterbury.................................................................................12
2.4 Charles Glyn Morris - unauthorised water take.............................................12
2.5 Operation Tengawai – Environment Canterbury flood protection works in
rivers in South Canterbury......................................................................12
2.6 Operation Quickset – dust discharge Lyttelton..............................................13
3 Infringements 15
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................15
3.2 Ashburton Meat Processors Limited - discharge of blood into water races...17
3.3 Calcon Asphalts - discharge of sediment into the Avon River.......................17
3.4 Mainland Products Limited - discharge of skim milk into the Heathcote River
................................................................................................................17
3.5 AD Argyle and PW Young – discharge dairy effluent....................................18
3.6 Morven-Glenavy & Ikawai Irrigation Company Limited – unauthorised water
take from the Waitaki River ....................................................................19
3.7 P J Butler - unauthorised drilling of a bore.....................................................19
3.8 Feltex Carpets Limited- oil spill into the Avon River.......................................19
3.9 D L Lauder- prohibited driving on the Avon-Heathcote Estuary Ihutai mudflats
................................................................................................................20
3.10 Barry Foster Contracting – discharge of suspended solids into the North
Brook, Rangiora......................................................................................20
3.11 G Radford unauthorised discharge to air from an outside fire.....................21
4 Other notable incidents............................................................................ 21
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................21
4.2 Air quality in Christchurch .............................................................................24
4.3 Discharge to St Albans Stream, Christchurch...............................................25
4.4 Petries Stream, South Canterbury – stock crossing a waterway...................25
4.5 Dinas Gully, Waitaki River Mouth – stock in waterways................................25
4.6 Operation Melted Sole – discharge of sodium hydroxide drum at Oaro, State
Highway One...........................................................................................26
4.7 Springston Landfill – non-complying dumping...............................................26
5 Conclusion 27
Appendix 1 Enforcement Unit Staff........................................................... 28
Appendix 2 Newspaper clippings.............................................................. 29
Glossary 30

List of Photos
Photo 3.1 Overflowing dairy shed effluent on the property of Argyll and
Young. (photo Mike Hide)................................................................. 18
Photo 4.2 Environment Canterbury outdoor fire ban poster for winter
2003. 24
Photo 4.3 An outside fire being put out after a request from an
Enforcement Officer. (photo Ken Baxter).......................................25
Photo 4.4 Aerial photo of Dinas Gully and the Waitaki Lagoon showing
the planned fenceline to exclude stock from the lagoon. (photo
Environment Canterbury)................................................................. 26
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Location (by district) and receiving environment of
environmental incidents registered with the Pollution Hotline
between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2003............................................. 6
Table 1.2 Types of environmental incidents registered with the
Pollution Hotline between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2003............... 7
Table 1.3 Potential consequences of environmental incidents registered
with the Pollution Hotline between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2003.8
Table 1.4 RMA Compliance & Enforcement Section as at 30 June 2002.9
Table 2.5 Prosecutions from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003.......................11
Table 3.6 Infringement notices issued for incidents between 1 July
2002 and 30 June 2003...................................................................... 15
Table 4.7 Abatement notices issued from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 200321

1 Introduction
1.1 Environmental enforcement

Enforcement is defined as “compelling the fulfilment of legal obligations”.1 Environmental
enforcement is not just a legal process when there has been an incident that has caused a
significant adverse effect on the environment. It is also about responding promptly and
effectively to incidents to minimise and remediate any adverse effects. In that way
enforcement is a management tool that contributes to the broader purpose of the Resource
Management Act 1991 (RMA), promoting the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources.
Figure 1.1 Canterbury Region, with territorial authority areas
1.2 The annual environmental incidents and enforcement

report
The Environment Canterbury Enforcement Unit was established in 1994. This document is
the second annual report describing the activities of the Enforcement Unit.
The function of the Enforcement Unit is to apply a range of response and enforcement
procedures to environmental incidents to remediate any adverse effects, educate those
responsible, and deter others through prosecution and other formal legal action, so that
similar incidents are not repeated.
The key message of this report is that in addition to the core function, which is essentially
reactive, the Enforcement Unit has also carried out proactive investigations into the use of
critically important resources. Two compliance surveys of water takes for irrigation use were
carried out successfully in North and South Canterbury when low-flow restrictions were in
force.
This report documents the important incidents in the year from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003.
The report is divided into three major sections: significant investigations, infringements, and
other notable incidents. This introductory section gives an overview of the Enforcement Unit,
some features of the year, and a summary of the major investigations, infringements and
incidents.
1.3 The Enforcement Unit and the Pollution Hotline

The Enforcement Unit is structured and funded to be reactive to incidents reported to the
Pollution Hotline, a 24-hour pollution response service. The unit consists of the Regional
Enforcement Officer, Bob Simpson, three Christchurch-based Enforcement Officers, Ken
Baxter, Marty Mortiaux and Norm Marsh; the Enforcement Administrator, Jackie Jones, and
one Enforcement Officer based in Timaru, Lance Corcoran.
About 70 calls a week are logged on the environmental incidents database. In the financial
year ended 30 June 2003, 3,586 calls were received. The most frequently reported incidents
concern air quality in Christchurch (Table 1.1). Table 1.2 lists the many types of incidents,
1
Grinlinton, D. 1992. Enforcement Mechanisms under the RMA, Planning Quarterly, March 1992,
pp 15-19

Low flows of the Opihi River and its tributaries

and indicates that 96% are classified as having minor or no effects. The consequences of
the incidents are summarised in Table 1.3.
Table 1.1 Location (by district) and receiving environment of environmental

incidents registered with the Pollution Hotline between 1 July 2002 and
30 June 2003
District Air Land Water Coastal Total

Ashburton 60 21 63 0 114
Banks 40 18 42 10 110
Peninsula
Christchurch 1988 103 301 21 2413
Hurunui 5 18 27 1 52
Kaikoura 25 5 20 0 50
Mackenzie 0 7 18 0 25
Selwyn 92 33 93 1 219
Timaru 142 74 106 7 329
Waimakariri 70 15 85 2 172
Waimate 15 15 25 1 56
Waitaki 1 7 8 0 16
Total 2439 316 788 43 3586

Table 1.2 Types of environmental incidents registered with the Pollution Hotline
between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2003
Incident Minor or Moderate Total
no effect or major
effect
Industrial process 675 44 719
Outside fire 489 6 495
Domestic chimney 355 2 357
Odour/fumes 218 14 232
Effluent spreading 136 14 150
Other 131 5 136
Raw/ treated sewage 131 5 136
Abstraction 111 6 117
Landfill 110 6 116
Petroleum products 104 1 105
De-watering/silt 100 2 102
Works in waterways 89 10 99
Green waste composting 81 4 85
Development/earthworks 66 3 69
Stock in waterways 61 4 65
Stormwater/land drainage 57 2 59
Trade waste 50 0 50
Domestic waste 46 1 47
Chemical containers & residues 42 1 43
Vehicle dumping 42 0 42
Dairy farm 38 1 39
Wet wood 38 0 38
Agricultural chemical 31 1 32
Abrasive blasting 25 4 29
Activities in coastal area 27 1 28
Pig farm 22 0 22
Exhaust fumes 21 0 21
Water running to waste 19 1 20
Spraydrift 18 0 18
Marine oil spill 14 0 14
Fish kill 10 4 14
Algal bloom 12 0 12
Gravel excavation 12 0 12
Stock/offal dumping 12 0 12
Stubble burning 9 0 9
Offal pits 6 0 6
Flood hazard 5 1 6
River protection works 5 1 6
Timber treatment process 5 0 5
Stock trucks 4 0 4
Vegetation clearance 4 0 4
Erosion 3 1 4
Contaminated site 3 0 3
Hill & high country burn 3 0 3
Quarrying 1 0 1
Total 3441 145 3586
96% 4% 100%


Table 1.3 Potential consequences of environmental incidents registered with the
Pollution Hotline between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2003.
Potential consequence of incidents No.

Air quality reduced 2264
Water quality reduced 441
No consequence 287
Water flow interference 110
Visual nuisance 195
Erosion 78
Soil quality reduced 82
Health effect 50
Water quantity reduced 51
Risky land management practices 16
Water quantity increased 12
3586
For each reported incident, a decision is made within 30 minutes on the course of action to
be followed. Incidents may simply be logged as “minor” if there is no clearly significant
evident effect or offence. These minor incidents often provide an opportunity to clarify the
rules applying to activities. Incidents involving activities for which there are associated
resource consents are usually referred to compliance monitoring officers. The Enforcement
Unit works alongside and provides back-up to the Compliance Monitoring teams in their role
of monitoring conditions in resource consents and rules in plans. The working relationships
are summarised in Table 1.4.

Table 1.4 RMA Compliance & Enforcement Section as at 30 June 2002
Section RMA Compliance & Enforcement
Reporting line Chief Executive

Director Regulation
RMA Compliance and Enforcement Manager
Unit Enforcement Compliance Monitoring
Funding Ratepayer except where fault 100% cost recovery from

established and fines and consent-holders (except
costs incurred are recovered some permitted activities)
Task allocation • Reactive to Pollution Periodic routine monitoring

Hotline complaints and according to programmes
incidents handed over
from Compliance
Monitoring
• Planned proactive
investigations
Staffing – Christchurch (as Five Thirteen Compliance
at 30 June 2003) (Regional Enforcement Monitoring Officers, one
Officer, three Enforcement Compliance Monitoring
Officers, Enforcement Administrator
Administrator)
Staffing – Timaru One Enforcement Officer Seven Compliance

Monitoring Officers
Staffing – Total Six Twenty-one
(as at 30 June 2003)
1.4 Incident response and investigation procedures

If a complaint involves a potentially serious environmental incident or an alleged offence, an
enforcement officer will make a site visit. The first priority will be to minimise any adverse
effects and then to investigate the incident. The Enforcement Unit can also call upon
expertise from Environment Canterbury technical and resource care staff, Christchurch City
Council staff (if the incident is in the Christchurch city area), private enforcement
investigators and external consultants as the situation demands.
Environmental incidents can amount to serious criminal offences under the RMA. A
conviction can attract imprisonment for up to two years and fines of up to $200,000. In
keeping with the seriousness of the penalties, the Enforcement Unit has adopted appropriate
standards for its investigations. Procedures are documented in flowcharts and manuals.
Investigative practices (such as collecting evidence, record keeping, file management, chain
of custody over samples and evidence, cautioning subjects before interviews) are carried out
to Police standards. Before a final decision on formal enforcement action is made, an
Environment Canterbury solicitor reviews the available evidence and advises whether or not
there is a prima facie case.
The Enforcement Unit has a range of options available to it under the RMA:
• verbal warning;


• notice of alleged offence;
• letter of formal warning and cost recovery;
• requesting application for a retrospective resource consent;
• issuing an abatement notice;
• issuing an infringement notice;
• applying to the Environment Court for an enforcement order; and/or
• prosecution.
Formal enforcement decisions are made after assessing the facts of each case under three
criteria: the culpability of the alleged offender, the degree of the adverse effect on the
environment, and the significance of the incident to the community.
1.5 Waterways and water quality

Many people are concerned about the impacts of some land uses on water quality,
particularly in lowland streams. The public has been encouraged to report all incidents
involving waterways to the Pollution Hotline.
In the year ended 30 June 2003 there were eight incidents involving dairy effluent and
waterways that resulted in infringement notices, with a fine of $750 in each case.
Infringement notices were issued for discharges to the Heathcote River, the Avon River and
the North Brook. Timaru Enforcement Officer Lance Corcoran resolved a long-standing
stock crossing issue in South Canterbury. He persuaded a farmer to install a culvert to
replace a stock crossing in Petries Stream.
The Enforcement Unit has also continued to liaise with community groups concerned about
water quality. The Enforcement Unit has continued to meet regularly with the staff of the
Fish and Game Council and their co-operation is gratefully acknowledged.

2 Significant investigations
2.1 Introduction
This section describes the most significant investigations into incidents with more than minor
effects undertaken by the Enforcement Unit in the year ended 30 June 2003. An important
difference from the previous year is that there were fewer high-profile investigations. In the
year ended 30 June 2002 an unusually high number of high-profile incidents were
investigated. Nine ‘informations’ for prosecutions were filed in court for five separate
incidents. From these cases there were four convictions and four satisfactory settlements.
In the year ended 30 June 2003 there were three ‘informations’ of which one has proceeded
to prosecution and conviction. The respite from serious incidents enabled the development
of a more strategic approach to the enforcement of rules applying to key resources such as
water, with a proactive check of water abstraction compliance.
Informations and prosecutions for the year are summarised in Table 2.1.
Table 2.5 Prosecutions from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003

Defendant Alleged offence Outcome
Canterbury Regional Unauthorised take of Convicted. Fined $4,500 and investigation
Council v Charles Glyn water for irrigation costs of $206
Morris
Undisclosed (Operation Unauthorised take of Final hearing date to be advised
Caithness) water for irrigation
Undisclosed (Operation Unauthorised take of Final hearing date to be advised
Sinclair) water for irrigation
2.2 Operation “Sshh” - survey of water take compliance in

South Canterbury
In mid January 2003, at a time when many Canterbury rivers were on low flow restrictions,
enforcement staff detected two serious incidents of unauthorised irrigation from the Waihao
River in South Canterbury. Those two incidents (Operation Caithness and Operation
Sinclair, which have yet to be heard in court), prompted the Enforcement Unit to conduct a
focused survey looking for unauthorised water takes in South Canterbury. The objective was
to check for unconsented water takes, takes from restricted waterways and water takes
where the relevant consent had expired. Six Enforcement Officers carried out Operation
“Sshh” over two days in late January 2003 surveying the MacKenzie Basin, the Waihao
River, the Tengawai River, Ashwick Flat and the Hinds Drainage Scheme.
The expected result of the operation was 100% compliance and this proved to be the case.
The Regional Enforcement Officer briefed newspapers and radio stations about the
operation in the first week of February. Good coverage was given to the story, particularly in
regional newspapers. This coverage reinforced the message that many rivers were on low
flow restriction and that water users needed to be fully aware of their resource consent
responsibilities.


2.3 Operation “Sshh” Mark II - proactive investigation into
water take compliance in North Canterbury
Following the success of Operation “Sshh”, the Enforcement Unit carried out a second
survey, Operation “Sshh” Mark II, in Central and North Canterbury in late February. Eight
staff from the Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring units surveyed the Selwyn, Ashley,
and Waipara catchments, the Kaikoura area and the Culverden/Waikari/Hawarden area. The
result of the second operation was 99% compliance as several unauthorised water takes
were identified.
The media briefing after the operation stressed the overall high compliance found and the
need for water users to be fully aware of their responsibilities under their resource consents,
particularly when many rivers are on low flow restrictions.
2.4 Charles Glyn Morris - unauthorised water take

Operation “Sshh” Mark II detected several minor offences and one significant offence, a take
of water by Charles Glyn Morris, contrary to a condition of a resource consent.
On 19 February 2003 Senior Compliance Monitoring Officer Dick Pilbrow and Compliance
Monitoring Officer Ross Glubb observed a gun irrigator spraying water in a paddock between
Corbett Road and the Selwyn River. The associated pump, belonging to Mr Charles Glyn
Morris, was taking water from a spring-fed tributary of the Selwyn River. The Selwyn River
had been on a low flow restriction since 21 January 2003. The resource consent held by Mr
Morris required him to stop taking water when the Selwyn River was on restriction.
Mr Morris pleaded guilty and on 12 September 2003 he was fined $4500. In the sentencing
Environment Court Judge Smith commented on the significance of water in the Canterbury
region and the importance of balancing extraction of water for agriculture with the need for
protection of in-stream habitats. He noted the significant public interest and the need for
deterrence to ensure that water users know the terms of their consents and that they
operate within them, particularly when there are low flow restrictions in force.
2.5 Operation Tengawai – Environment Canterbury flood

protection works in rivers in South Canterbury
In early October 2002 the Pollution Hotline received several complaints from fishermen
about the effects of flood protection works carried out by the Environment Canterbury
Engineering section in the bed of the Tengawai River upstream of Pleasant Point in South
Canterbury.
On 2 October 2002 Enforcement Officer Lance Corcoran visited the Tengawai River and
observed the results of extensive works. Bulldozers had removed vegetation from islands,
berms and open riverbed areas. Willows had been felled into flowing channels. The
concerns of one local fisherman, who was “livid” about the destruction of a fishing area,
featured prominently in the Timaru Herald on 3 October 2002. The complainants were
concerned about the damage to recreational fishing areas, lack of consultation with interest
groups, the impact on fish habitat and on amenity values, and whether the works were
legally authorised.
The Environment Canterbury Engineering section responded that the works were regarded
as maintenance of flood protection features and were authorised as permitted activities
under the transitional provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The works

were carried out according to the River Engineering maintenance programme. Before
carrying out the works the Central South Island Fish and Game Council had been consulted
and they had asked for the timing of the works to be changed to avoid trout and salmon
spawning.
The Enforcement Unit investigated the complaint. In November 2002 the Enforcement Unit
commissioned an independent assessment of the environmental effects of the flood works
from a freshwater scientist, Mark Taylor of Applied Ecology Limited. This assessment
concluded that the most visually obvious impact of the flood protection works, the clearance
of gorse and broom off river fairways with a bulldozer, had minimal effects. However the
works had affected some small side braids of the river that are nursery habitat for young
trout and refuges during floods for adult trout. The report recommended that remediation
works were necessary on some of these side braids and that in future flood protection work
should leave low-flow side braids in their natural state. Also any future flood protection
works, if considered necessary, should be timed for the end of the trout-spawning season,
March.
On 5 March 2003 the report was discussed between Enforcement staff and River
Engineering staff during a site visit to the Tengawai River. Environment Canterbury River
Engineering staff agreed to change procedures to better protect fish habitats. The
recommended small-scale remediation measures to clear willows from the side braids were
identified and agreed to. The works were carried out in late March.
A letter was sent to the original complainants informing them of the progress with the
investigation, the impacts on fresh water habitats that had been identified and the planned
remediation measures.
The final step in the investigation was to review the legal status of the flood protection
works. In late September 2003 an external legal opinion confirmed the opinion of
Environment Canterbury’s internal solicitors that the maintenance of river protection works
by Environment Canterbury does not require a resource consent due to the transitional
arrangements within the RMA. As the environmental effects of the incident had already
been remediated and as procedures for flood protection works had been improved the
investigation file was then closed.
2.6 Operation Quickset – dust discharge Lyttelton

On 17 April 2003 the Pollution Hotline received a complaint about dust drifting into Lyttelton
from a Lyttelton Port Company wharf. Enforcement Officer Norman Marsh investigated and
observed dust coming from the unloading of a bulk cargo of clinker 2 from the ship "Ace
Bridge" berthed at Number 3 west outer wharf. A strong southerly wind was blowing dust
from the crane buckets, hoppers and trucks into Lyttelton, where it was deposited on parked
cars, houses, the main shopping area in London Street and the Lyttelton Main School in
Oxford Street. The unloading was stopped until the wind died down. Within days the clinker
dust had dried out and became difficult to remove.
The incident featured on national television news. There had been a history of dust incidents
from the unloading of bulk cargoes at Lyttelton. However, the clinker dust incident was the
most significant of these and the Environment Canterbury investigation was conducted to
collect enough evidence to support prosecution if the subsequent findings indicated such
action was warranted.
2
“clinker” a fine-grained ingredient of cement consisting of silica, calcium, iron and alumina.


The Lyttelton Port Company holds a resource consent and a management plan for the
unloading of dusty bulk cargoes such as clinker. Holcim (New Zealand) Limited shipped the
clinker to Lyttelton. Lyttelton Stevedoring Services unloaded the clinker under contract to
Holcim.
Holcim immediately organised a thorough clean-up of all affected properties in Lyttelton,

using commercial cleaners. The Enforcement Unit encouraged Holcim to do this and
confirmed that consents would not be needed for the clean-up. Holcim carried out leaflet
drops, public meetings and set up an 0800 phone number to keep residents informed.
Houses, cars, the Lyttelton Main School and the London Street shopping area were cleaned.
The investigation into the incident concluded that all three parties, the Lyttelton Port
Company, Holcim and Lyttelton Stevedoring Services, could have prevented the dust
problem. The wind speed during unloading was outside the guidelines in the Port Company
Management Plan. As the consent holder Lyttelton Port Company was considered primarily
responsible.
In October 2003 after an exchange between the solicitors representing the parties, Lyttelton
Port Company agreed to a settlement with Environment Canterbury. Instead of prosecution
Environment Canterbury issued all three parties with abatement notices to stop any further
problems with clinker dust. Lyttelton Port Company agreed to improve unloading procedures
and to consider changing the conditions of the resource consent to improve the conditions
covering the unloading of dusty bulk cargoes. The alternative would have been a formal
process of review of consent conditions by Environment Canterbury.

3 Infringements
3.1 Introduction
This section describes the incidents that resulted in infringement notices. Infringement
notices are suitable for responding quickly to relatively minor offences that do not warrant
prosecution.
The alleged offence is classified as an infringement, requiring the payment of a fine but
without the record of a conviction. The fines, which are set by regulation, range from $300 to
$1000. A panel consisting of the Regional Enforcement Officer, the RMA Compliance and
Enforcement Manager and an Environment Canterbury Solicitor, review recommendations
from enforcement officers.
In the year ended 30 June 2003, 44 infringement notices were issued with fines totalling
$25,200 to be paid to Environment Canterbury (Table 3.1). Eight infringement notices were
issued for unauthorised discharges of dairy effluent and ten were issued for unauthorised
discharges to air from industrial premises.
Table 3.6 Infringement notices issued for incidents between 1 July 2002 and 30
June 2003
Name of infringer Date of Infringement Location Fine
incident
The George Hotel 9/7/02 Discharge of diesel into groundwater Christchurch $750
Jennens Paint & 10/7/02 Discharge of spray paint to air not Bromley $1000
Marine compliant with resource consent
Feltex Carpets Ltd 10/7/02 Discharge of soot to air not compliant with Riccarton $1000
resource consent
E Van-Hemert 17/7/02 Discharge of piggery effluent onto land Oxford $750
with potential to enter water
D P D Tyson 2/8/02 Discharge of dairy effluent onto land with Springston $750
potential to enter water
J B Acland 23/8/02 Unauthorised burning of plants and Mt Peel $300
habitat
Jennens Paint & 11/9/02 Discharge of spray paint to air not Bromley $1000
Marine compliant with resource consent
Royal Furniture Ltd 19/9/02 Discharge of wood dust to air not Christchurch $1000
compliant with resource consent
D L Lauder 9/10/02 Use of vehicle within coastal marine area Avon $500
not authorised by a plan Heathcote
Estuary
N O & L Dogterom 18/10/02 Discharge of dairy effluent onto land with Duntroon $750
G J Mercer 31/10/02 Discharge of dairy effluent onto land with Doyleston $750
Retell Holdings Ltd 8/11/02 Discharge of dairy effluent onto land with Glenavy $750
J Guy 8/11/02 Discharge of dairy effluent onto land with Glenavy $750
I Moore 15/11/02 Discharge of urea into water Willowby $750
P J Butler 15/11/02 Unauthorised drilling of bore Coldstream $300
P J Butler 15/11/02 Unauthorised drilling of bore Coldstream $300


Name of infringer Date of Infringement Location Fine
incident
Unnamed defendant 15/11/02 Unauthorised drilling of bore (under Coldstream N/a
dispute)
Unnamed defendant 15/11/02 Unauthorised drilling of bore (under Coldstream N/a
dispute)
B J Sutton 9/12/02 Discharge of dairy effluent onto land with Leeston $750
Unnamed defendant 13/12/02 Discharge of contaminants to air Harewood N/a
Calcon Asphalt 16/12/02 Discharge of suspended solids into the North $750
River Avon Hagley Park
Nuplex Medismart Ltd 8/1/03 Discharge of contaminants (from Harewood $1000
incinerator) to air
A D Argyle & P W 9/1/03 Discharge of dairy effluent onto land with Glenavy $750
Young potential to enter water
B F Foster 14/1/03 Discharge of suspended solids into water Rangiora $750
not compliant with resource consent
Tegel Foods Ltd 16/1/03 Discharge of contaminants from rendering Hornby $1000
to air
G D Ablett 20/1/03 Discharge of contaminants (dumping) to Heihei $1000
land
Unnamed defendant 20/1/03 Unauthorised works in riverbed (under Studholm N/a
dispute)
dispute)
dispute)
Ashburton Meat 29/1/03 Discharge of contaminants (blood) to Ashburton $750
Processors Ltd water
T C Lambie 17/2/03 Discharge of dairy effluent onto land with Pleasant $750
potential to enter water Point
Mainland Products Ltd 18/2/03 Discharge of contaminant (skim milk) onto Christchurch $1000
land with potential to enter water
Unnamed defendant 12/3/03 Discharge of contaminants to air Woolston N/a
Mid Canterbury 20/3/03 Unauthorised works within bed of river Ashburton $500
Earthmovers Ltd River Mouth
K Norriss 20/3/03 Unauthorised works within bed of river Ashburton $500
River Mouth
Morven-Glenavy & 28/3/03 Unauthorised take of water from Waitaki Glenavy $500
Ikawai Irrigation Co Ltd River
F E Hocken 1/5/03 Unauthorised works in riverbed Twizel $500
(excavation of gravel)
C J Sales 13/5/03 Contravening abatement notice requiring Christchurch $750
cessation of discharge to Styx River
G Radford 14/5/03 Discharge of contaminants to air (outside Belfast` $300
fire)
Primary Producers Co- 29/5/03 Discharge of contaminants (odour) to air Belfast $1000
operative Society Ltd
Primary Producers Co- 30/5/03 Discharge of contaminants (odour) to air Belfast $1000
operative Society Ltd
Feltex Carpets Ltd 24/6/03 Discharge of contaminant (light fuel oil) Riccarton $1000
onto land with potential to enter water
Unnamed defendant 29/5/03 Contravening an abatement notice (under Waimate N/a
dispute)
Unnamed defendant 31/5/03 Contravening an abatement notice (under Waimate N/a
dispute)
The following nine summaries give an indication of the broad range of incidents for which
infringement notices were used.

3.2 Ashburton Meat Processors Limited - discharge of blood

into water races
On 29 January 2003 the Pollution Hotline received a complaint that a water race in
Ashburton was red. The water race was downstream of the Ashburton Meat Processors
Limited plant on Bridge Street. A hose on a pump had ruptured and approximately 200 litres
of blood from the works escaped through a stormwater drain into the water race.
The company was immediately advised and they responded that afternoon. Paul Cornelius
from the Environment Canterbury Ashburton depot inspected the plant and had took four
samples from the water races. He confirmed that the water race had been blocked to stop
the flow and to contain the blood. A suction truck took the contaminated water out of the
water race. Once the contaminated water had been removed from the water race, the flow of
water was restored.
The investigation into the incident concluded that although the effects of the incident on the
waterways were minor due to the prompt remediation, the incident was a repeat of an
incident that had occurred two years previously. The company had taken measures to
ensure that spilt blood would not enter storm water drains. These proved to be ineffective as
the spilt blood again entered a drain leading to the water race. Ashburton Meat Processors
Limited was issued with an infringement notice with a fine of $750 for an unauthorised
discharge of a contaminant, blood, into the water race.
3.3 Calcon Asphalts - discharge of sediment into the Avon

River
On 16 December 2002 the Pollution Hotline received a complaint that there was a
discoloured milky substance in the Hagley Park section of the Avon River. An obvious milky
plume, approximately 2 metres wide and extending downstream, appeared to be entering
the Avon River from the Riccarton Drain.
Enforcement Officer Norm Marsh traced the discolouration to a construction works in

Dilworth Street, Riccarton. Calcon Asphalts had been using a digger within the drain without
sufficient filtering to ensure that suspended sediment did not escape downstream. The Avon
River was sampled for suspended solids. Calcon Asphalts was informed of the incident on
17 December 2002 but made no attempt to minimise the effects. The concentration of
suspended solids was significantly in excess of the limit permitted in the Environment
Canterbury Transitional Regional Plan.
Calcon Asphalts was issued with an infringement notice with a fine of $750.
3.4 Mainland Products Limited - discharge of skim milk into

the Heathcote River
On 18 February 2003 Mainland Products Limited notified the Pollution Hotline that there had
been a spill of skim milk from their Blenheim Road plant. The skim milk had discharged from
a milk tanker through an open inspection hatch while it was being filled. Approximately six
thousand litres of milk drained through an open valve in a sump into the Curletts Road Drain
and then into the Heathcote River.
The milk spill left an obvious milky colour in Curletts Road Drain and the Heathcote River for
at least a day afterwards. Milk spills can kill fish and other aquatic life by significantly
reducing the oxygen content of the water.
Compliance Monitoring Team Leader James Tricker and Regional Enforcement Officer Bob
Simpson met Mainland Product staff on site on the night of 18 February 2003. It was agreed


that Mainland Product Limited would have the milk remaining in the sump immediately
pumped out to avoid it entering the waterways.
Water samples were taken from the Heathcote River and Curletts Drain that night and the
following day to assess the level of environmental impact. Environment Canterbury water
quality staff noted that there were no dead fish as a result of the spill and that the milky
colour had gone from the Heathcote River by 20 February 2003. It appeared that there were
only minor adverse effects from the spill. However, a joint research project on the
invertebrates in the Curletts Road Drain conducted by Christchurch City Council and the
National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA) was affected.
The investigation into the incident considered the following factors. The spill could have been
reasonably foreseen as it followed a previous spill in 2002 through the same sump valve.
The effects of the spill turned out to be minor. Mainland Products Limited had co-operated
fully in remediating the spill and with the Environment Canterbury investigation. They had
offered to pay Environment Canterbury's costs and they paid Christchurch City Council for
the cost of the lost research project.
Mainland Products Limited was issued with an infringement notice with a fine of $1,000.
3.5 AD Argyle and PW Young – discharge dairy effluent

AD Argyle and PW Young operate a dairy farm on the north bank of the Waitaki River
milking 580 cows. In October and November 2002 Compliance Monitoring Officer Mike Hide
inspected the farm. He noted overflowing effluent at the dairy shed and that effluent was
ponding beneath the effluent irrigator, in breach of the consent conditions. The sharemilkers
were requested to ensure that there were no more overflows of effluent and to ensure that
the effluent irrigator was moved often enough to prevent ponding of effluent.
In January 2003 Mike Hide revisited the farm and found ponding under the effluent irrigator.
He advised the new sharemilker and the owner that if the effluent irrigator was not moved
often enough to avoid ponding, enforcement action would be taken.
Mike Hide visited the farm again in March 2003. The effluent irrigator had not been moved
frequently enough and had caused severe ponding of effluent that was then flowing into a
drain. Effluent was also flowing from the sump of the dairy shed. Both discharges were in
breach of the conditions of the resource consent. The consent holder was issued with an
infringement notice with a fine of $750 and an abatement notice to emphasise the
requirement to comply with the consent conditions.
Photo 3.1 Overflowing dairy shed effluent on the property of Argyll and Young.
(photo Mike Hide)
Another seven infringement notices were issued for similar discharges of dairy effluent
identified by Environment Canterbury compliance monitoring officers during routine
monitoring visits around the Canterbury region. The Argyll and Young farm was of note
because of their repeated non-compliance.

3.6 Morven-Glenavy & Ikawai Irrigation Company Limited –

unauthorised water take from the Waitaki River
The Morven Glenavy and Ikawai Irrigation Company Limited has a resource consent to take
water from the Waitaki River at a rate not exceeding 6,000 litre per second. For the six
months of the irrigation season, from November 2002 to May 2003, the company took water
in excess of the limit of 6,000 litres per second on 53 days. The rate of take was recorded by
a water recorder and measurements were provided monthly to the Timaru office of
Environment Canterbury.
In response to the monthly reports indicating that the company was taking more water than
the consent authorised Senior Compliance Monitoring Officer Lindsay Anderson issued
three written warnings to the company to comply with the rate of take specified in the
resource consent. The company did not ensure that the water take was limited to the
permitted amount.
The Morven Glenavy and Ikawai Irrigation Company Limited was issued with an infringement
notice with a fine of $500.
3.7 P J Butler - unauthorised drilling of a bore

On 18 November 2002 the Pollution Hotline received a complaint that two irrigation bores
had been drilled too close to an existing well and in the wrong location on the property of PJ
and HM Butler, at Coldstream near the Rangitata River.
On 21 November 2002 Enforcement Officer Norman Marsh visited Mr Butler’s property and
checked the location of the wells using a handheld global positioning system unit. The two
bores had been drilled 300 and 1190 metres away from the sites specified in the bore
permits issued on 9 November 2001. Mr Butler explained that he had overlooked the
consent conditions and had relied on the drillers to locate the bores.
Although the change in bore location did not directly have an adverse effect, the assessment
of well interference effects for the groundwater take from the bore does rely on the bore
location being correct. It is of fundamental importance to the resource consent process that
consent holders read and understand and comply with such conditions. Consequently Mr
Butler was issued with infringement notices for $300 for each incident.
3.8 Feltex Carpets Limited- oil spill into the Avon River
On 24 June 2003 the Pollution Hotline received a complaint that there were traces of oil in
the Avon River next to the Feltex Carpets Limited factory in Athol Terrace, Upper Riccarton,
Christchurch. Enforcement Officer Ken Baxter carried out the investigation, which was with
the full co-operation of Feltex Carpets Limited.
A fuel pump on a tank containing light fuel oil had failed allowing oil to escape into the yard.
Feltex staff on night shift discovered the spill and they immediately used sawdust and wood
shavings to soak up the oil. Nonetheless some oil reached a storm water drain in the yard
that ran into the Avon River. Environment Canterbury staff removed the oil with an
absorbent boom several days later.
The effects on the Avon River were minor. The quantity of oil was small and it was
removed. However the potential adverse effects on the river were more serious as it is a
spring-fed stream with normally high water quality and clarity. Feltex Carpets Limited had co-
operated fully and had attempted to recover the oil. However, the spill was similar to a
previous spill of oil investigated in January 2003 and the public expectation is that


companies such as Feltex Carpets Limited should be able to conduct their operation without
causing these effects. Feltex Carpets Limited was issued with an infringement notice and a
fine of $1,000.
3.9 D L Lauder- prohibited driving on the Avon-Heathcote

Estuary Ihutai mudflats
On 9th October 2002 the Pollution Hotline received a call about a car stuck in the Avon-
Heathcote Estuary (Ihutai). Enforcement Officer Norman Marsh responded and found a
group of people by a car sunk up to its axles in mud, near South New Brighton Park. The
passengers and driver stated that they had been trying to see how far into the estuary they
could get the car. The car was towed out of the estuary. The Proposed Regional Coastal
Plan prohibits driving a private motor vehicle in the estuary.
This incident happened very soon after an article appeared in the Press on 7 October 2002
"Estuary mudflat drivers warned".
“Environment Canterbury is urging the public to dob in drivers who go on to the
Avon-Heathcote Estuary mudflats. Environment Canterbury has warned drivers they
face fines of up to $500, and said its officers would react quickly to further reports of
vehicles on the mudflats, after a spate of incidents. These drivers were harming a
precious, highly productive ecosystem, environment and navigation safety
committee chairwoman Valerie Campbell, said."It is unacceptable to kill small
creatures such as crabs and shellfish as they play an important role.” Enforcement
Officer Bob Simpson said Environment Canterbury took a dim view of the antics of
a few people who were treating the estuary as an off road route..”.
Given the previous incidents, public concern about off-road vehicles in fragile coastal areas
and the need to provide a level of deterrence to anyone intending to drive within the estuary
the driver, Ms D L Lauder, was issued with an infringement notice with a fine of $500.
3.10 Barry Foster Contracting – discharge of suspended solids

into the North Brook, Rangiora
On 14 January 2003 the Pollution Hotline received several calls about discolouration of the
North Brook stream near Rangiora. Enforcement Officer Norm Marsh traced the source of
the discharge to earth works being carried out by Barry Foster Contracting for the
Northbrook Estates Limited development east of Rangiora.
A digger was excavating gravel from a pond in the middle of the construction zone. The
ponded water, high in disturbed sediments, was then discharging along a drain directly into
the North Brook. There was no sediment trap. The work was stopped and Barry Foster
Contracting were instructed to ensure there were no further discharges of disturbed
sediments. Samples of the North Brook were taken downstream and upstream of the point
of discharge. The analysis of the samples indicated low concentrations of suspended solids
upstream and very high concentrations of suspended solids downstream that were in excess
of the Transitional Regional Plan rules. The North Brook is a spring-fed lowland stream of
good water quality that is valued by the Rangiora community. It was clearly discoloured by
the discharge of sediments that may have affected the aquatic life of the stream.
Consequently Barry Foster Contracting was issued with an infringement notice with a fine of
$750.

3.11 G Radford unauthorised discharge to air from an outside

fire
On 14 May 2003 the Pollution Hotline received a call from a Rural Fire Officer about a fire in
a paddock in Belfast. Enforcement Officer Marty Mortiaux observed a high plume of smoke
from over a kilometre away before arriving at the paddock off Tyrone Street, Belfast.
At the paddock Mr Graeme Radford was using a tractor to place more green branches from
a hedgerow onto a bonfire. A fire engine had arrived but had been refused access to the
paddock by Mr Radford. After a heated exchange about the Christchurch winter fire ban, Mr
Radford was persuaded to let the firemen enter the paddock to put out the fire but, he still
placed another load on the fire with his tractor while the firemen were attempting to put it
out. The firemen subsequently called the police and the fire was finally put out.
As Mr Radford had intentionally lit the bonfire and deliberately refused to assist in putting the
fire out by denying access to the Fire Service he was issued with an infringement notice with
a fine of $300.
4 Other notable incidents
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report gives some examples of incidents that the Enforcement Unit
successfully resolved without undertaking prosecutions or issuing infringement notices. Due
to the variety of incidents that come through to the Pollution Hotline innovative approaches
are needed to respond effectively. The initial response with all environmental incidents is to
persuade individuals to remedy any adverse effects. This persuasion is, where possible,
backed up with reference to the relevant rules, consent conditions, or other provisions of the
RMA.
In addition to advocacy initiatives and enforcement responses, Environment Canterbury also

uses abatement notices in specific situations. Abatement notices can be issued under
section 17 of the RMA as it imposes a general but not specifically enforceable duty to
mitigate adverse effects. Infringement notices and fines can be issued for failure to comply
with an abatement notice.
Abatement notices can also be used in any situation where an Enforcement Officer has
reasonable grounds to believe there are adverse effects or a contravention of the RMA, and
a specific action should be taken to avoid or mitigate those effects. Table 4.1 summarises
the abatement notices issued for the year.
Table 4.7 Abatement notices issued from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003
Name of Date Alleged offence/ Location Action required Outcome
recipient issued situation
Tegel Foods 9/7/02 Discharge of Carmen Road, Empty effluent Effluent holding tank
Ltd contaminant (odour) Christchurch holding tank emptied and
to air procedures changed
Canterbury 22/7/02 Discharge of Pendarves, Cease discharge of Abatement notice
Meat Packers contaminant (odour) Ashburton objectionable odour withdrawn, works
Ltd to air undertaken to resolve
odour issues
Hummingbird 12/8/03 Discharge of Christchurch Improve chimney Chimney stack


Coffee contaminant (odour) stack modified

to air
SE&ME 1/10/02 Discharge of dairy Duntroon Seal collection Upgrades not
Fenwick effluent onto land areas, comply with completed by
not compliant with consent 19/11/02
consent upgrades contracted
for 9/12/02
NO&L 4/10/02 Discharge of dairy Duntroon Seal effluent pond, Works started
Dogterom effluent onto land comply with 19/11/02
not compliant with consent
consent
C J Sales 22/10/02 Discharge of Styx River, Cease discharge Not complied with
sewage waste water Christchurch Infringement notice
into Styx River issued
G J Mercer 5/11/02 Discharge of dairy Leeston Cease discharge Not complied with
effluent into water Infringement notice
not compliant with issued
consent
Coupland’s 8/11/02 Discharge of dust to Timaru Improve filtering, New cyclones
Animal Foods air not complaint cease discharge installed 17/12/02
Ltd with consent
Retell Holdings 13/12/02 Discharge of dairy Waimate Ensure no ponding Compliance noted
Ltd effluent onto land of dairy effluent 7/3/03 after 3 more
not compliant with site visits
consent
B J Sutton 17/12/02 Discharge of dairy Leeston Cease discharge, Complied with by
effluent into water or clean effluent up 20/12/02
land not compliant
with consent
Foundation 7/1/03 Unauthorised Sydenham Cease discharge Chimney modified
Foods discharge of and modify on-going odour
Holdings Ltd contaminant (odour) chimney issues
to air
R E Morris Ltd 22/1/03 Unauthorised Sydenham Cease discharge, Company ceased
discharge of modify and test trading and discharge
contaminant (smoke furnace, comply
and odour) to air with consent
Argyle A D & 15/1/03 Discharge of dairy Glenavy Cease ponding, Infringement Notice
Young P W effluent into water or cease discharge to also issued 9/1/03
land not compliant waterways, comply
with consent with consent
Erralyn Farm 19/2/03 Discharge of dairy Rakaia Cease ponding, Ponding ceased
Ltd effluent onto land comply with 25/2/03
consent
Acton Dairy 18/2/03 Discharge of dairy Rakaia Cease ponding, Ponding ceased
Farm Ltd effluent onto land comply with 25/2/03
consent
T C Lambie 26/2/03 Discharge of dairy Pleasant Point Cease ponding, Ponding noted 1/4/03
effluent onto land cease discharge to and 16/4/03
not compliant with waterways, comply
consent with consent


A J Reid & M 3/4/03 Discharge of dairy Temuka Cease ponding, Ponding ceased
W Horne effluent onto land comply with 4/4/03
consent
Pah Farms 4/4/03 Discharge of dairy Ashburton Cease ponding, New system installed
(Methven) Ltd effluent into water or cease discharge to June 2003
land not compliant waterways, comply
with consent with consent
Selwyn District 3/4/03 Discharge of Springston Remove all non- Complied with 9/4/03
Council contaminants inert material from
(dumping) to land landfill
not compliant with
consent
Primary 7/4/03 Discharge of Fairton Cease discharge of Discharge ceased by
Producers Co- contaminants (plant sulphide 8/4/03
operative waste) to land not
Society Ltd compliant with
consent
K Norriss 8/4/03 Unauthorised works Ashburton Remediate, bund Works completed by
within bed of river River mouth and plant track 27/4/03
works
B Foster 10/4/03 Discharge of Rangiora Cease discharge Discharge ceased
suspended solids comply with advised to apply for
into water not consent change of conditions
compliant with on 22/4/03
consent
P Smith 28/4/03 Discharge of Washdyke Remove Complied with by
Earthmoving contaminants unconsented 22/7/03
2002 Ltd (dumping) to land material from
not compliant with landfill, signage
consent
V L Smith & 6/5/03 Unauthorised Kaikoura Restrict burning of Complied with by
Sons Ltd discharge of treated timber 7/5/03
contaminant (smoke
from treated timber)
to air
Southern 15/5/03 Unauthorised Timaru Cease incineration Complied with by
Packers Ltd discharge of unless testing 16/5/03
contaminant under specified
(smoke) to air conditions
Adams Sawmill 22/5/03 Unauthorised Ashburton Install stormwater Infiltration installed by
Ltd discharge of infiltration 6/8/03
stormwater not
compliant with
consent
GK 28/5/03 Potential Waimate Refrain from Infringement Notices
Middlemiss unauthorised works unauthorised works issued 29/5/02 &
in a river bed in a river bed 31/5/02
New Zealand 28/5/03 Discharge of Temuka Cease discharge Complied with by
Milk Products contaminants into 9/6/03
Ltd water or land not
compliant with
consent


Frews 28/5/03 Discharge of Oxford Cease discharges Truckwashing ceased

Transport Ltd contaminants onto of truckwash water
land not compliant
with consent
A W Richards 3/6/03 Unauthorised Sockburn Cease use of Use ceased at
discharge of incinerator, apply 12/8/03
contaminant for consent
(smoke) to air
M Boyd 24/6/03 Unauthorised Kaikoura Repair septic tank Complied with by
discharge of dispersal field 27/3/03
sewage
The following paragraphs are examples of some of these incidents.
4.2 Air quality in Christchurch

Christchurch has a serious problem with the quality of air in winter. There are documented
health and nuisance effects. The contaminant of most concern to human health is
suspended particulate, usually measured as PM10. These are particles smaller than 10
microns in diameter. Ninety percent of Christchurch's measured concentrations of PM10
originate from burning wood and coal in open fires and enclosed burners. The majority of
complaints to the Pollution Hotline are concerned with air quality (Table 1.1).
Photo 4.2 Environment Canterbury outdoor fire ban poster for winter 2003.
The air quality-related complaints can be further categorised into complaints about smoky
domestic chimneys, outside fires, and industrial air discharges (Table 1.2).
In 2003 the Enforcement Unit prepared for another winter of smoky domestic chimney
incidents with a publicity campaign using television, newspapers and radio. Fact sheets on
cleaner wood burning and outside fires were produced and distributed through garden
centres and other outlets. The aim was to make more people aware of the winter ban on
outside fires and the $300 infringement fine that would be imposed for serious incidents and
to promote clean burning techniques for wood burners. Environment Canterbury employed
two home-heating advisors to help householders use their older woodburners more
efficiently. The “smoke busters”, Ken Henderson and Craig Richards, made many visits to
individuals and community groups to demonstrate more efficient use of wood burners.
The Enforcement Unit responded to 344 incidents in Christchurch involving smoky domestic
chimneys. The usual response is to suggest the complainant discuss the matter with the
owner of the chimney or to send a letter reminding chimney owners about Christchurch’s air
quality problems and advising on methods to reduce smokiness. The Pollution Hotline was
also able to refer a large number of calls to the home-heating advisors.
Outside fires in the Christchurch City Council territorial area are prohibited from May to
August (inclusive) each year because of the impact on air quality. The Enforcement Unit
aims to respond to 100% of winter complaints about outside fires with the intention of getting
the fires immediately put out. The Enforcement Unit responded to 430 outside fires in

Christchurch in the year ended 30 June 2003. One infringement notice with a $300 fine was
issued for a discharge of contaminants to air from an outside fire (3.11).
The Pollution Hotline received 581 complaints in Christchurch and 80 complaints in Timaru
during the year about industrial processes. Nine infringement notices were issued during the
year for discharges to air from industrial premises that were offences (Table 4.1).
Photo 4.3 An outside fire being put out after a request from an Enforcement
Officer. (photo Ken Baxter)
4.3 Discharge to St Albans Stream, Christchurch

On 16 May 2003 the Pollution Hotline received two complaints that a small stream in the
Christchurch suburb of St Albans was running a red-brown rust colour. One of the
complainants emailed in photographs and reported a licence plate number. Enforcement
Officer Marty Mortiaux established that two contractors, Canterbury Water Blasting
Techniques and Action Drainage, had been waterblasting a storm water drain to clear a
blockage. The blockage was cleared but it released the discoloured water from the drain into
the roadside stormwater drain and subsequently into the St Albans Stream.
The discolouration cleared quickly and was considered not to have had any harmful effects
on the stream. Given these factors and the accidental nature of the discharge, the
investigation was taken no further and the complainants were informed of the outcome.
4.4 Petries Stream, South Canterbury – stock crossing a

waterway
In November 2002 the Fish and Game Council Central South Island contacted the Pollution
Hotline about a stock crossing in Petries Stream, a tributary of the Orari River in South
Canterbury. The complainant had observed cows repeatedly crossing the stream on their
way to be milked and as they returned to their paddocks. The stock crossing has existed
since the 1970s when the milking shed was constructed on the right bank of the creek. The
stock crossing had been observed on numerous occasions and other complaints had been
lodged with the Pollution Hotline.
The pollution of waterways caused by stock crossings is justifiably an issue of some

concern. Cattle effluent degrades the water quality by raising concentrations of micro-
organisms, reducing water clarity and by increasing concentrations of organic contaminants.
Effluent can also smother habitat and it can potentially increase the growth of nuisance
weeds. Trampling by cattle causes damage to the banks and the release of sediments. This
in turn adversely affects the stream substrate that provide habitat.
Enforcement Officer Lance Corcoran contacted the farmer, Norman Trevor Sherriff and in
February 2003 after several site visits and discussions it was agreed that a culvert would be
built over Petries Stream. Advice was provided on the application for the resource consent
needed for the construction of the culvert. The application for resource consent for the
culvert was approved on 23 April 2003. The culvert was constructed in May 2003.
4.5 Dinas Gully, Waitaki River Mouth – stock in waterways

On 29 August 2002 Central South Island Fish and Game Council made a written complaint
to Environment Canterbury about winter grazing of several hundred cattle in waterways in an


area known as Dinas Gully, one kilometre north of the Waitaki River mouth. The 30-hectare
area is a gully and former channel of the Waikakahi River that borders on the Waitaki
Lagoon, a popular fishing spot. The base of the gully has a series of braids that have very
low flows in winter and higher flows in summer due to run-off from border dyke irrigation
schemes. These braids are also a known fish-spawning area. The land-owner, Mr Derek
Chalmers, had converted to dairying two years earlier and was using Dinas Gully as a winter
run-off block.
Fish and Game were concerned about the cattle feeding in the stream and lagoon edges
and the resulting damage to stream banks from pugging, trampling, and the reduction in
water quality from defecating animals.
Timaru Enforcement Officer Lance Corcoran approached Mr Chalmers about this incident in
September 2002. The landowner was initially reluctant to co-operate. However he
responded positively following a joint approach involving the Enforcement Unit, the
Environment Canterbury Resource Care group and Central South Island Fish and Game
Council. In late October an agreement was reached that was acceptable to all parties that
about one-third of the area nearest the lagoon would be fenced off and permanently retired
from grazing.
Photo 4.4 Aerial photo of Dinas Gully and the Waitaki Lagoon showing the
planned fenceline to exclude stock from the lagoon. (photo
Environment Canterbury)
4.6 Operation Melted Sole – discharge of sodium hydroxide

drum at Oaro, State Highway One
On 22 October 2002 a 200-litre drum of highly corrosive caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) fell
off a truck on State Highway One at Oaro, south of Kaikoura. The drum had ruptured and
some caustic soda ran into a culvert leading to the beach. Grass in the culvert was killed and
went brown on contact with the soda.
The Kaikoura Fire Service cleaned up the spill and recovered the drum that morning.
Environment Canterbury Kaikoura Manager Alastair Wright photographed the accident
scene, took samples and took possession of the damaged drum. On 23 October 2002 the
Chemcouriers division of Mainfreight contacted Environment Canterbury to claim
responsibility for the spill. On 25 October 2003 Works Infrastructure took 11 tonnes of
contaminated gravel and sand from the accident site at Chemcouriers’ expense.
Enforcement Officers Norm Marsh and Marty Mortiaux interviewed the truck loader and the
Christchurch branch manager of Chemcouriers Mainfreight about the incident. The truck
driver died in an accident before he could be interviewed. The probable cause of the loss of
the drum was the use of a flat-deck truck to transport hazardous goods.
Although the spill of caustic soda was clearly a discharge of a hazardous contaminant,
Chemcouriers had co-operated with the clean up of the site and they had changed their
procedures so that flat-deck trucks were not used to transport drums of hazardous material.
Given the remediation and the death of the driver, no formal enforcement action was taken
against Chemcouriers other than the recovery of the cost of the investigation.
4.7 Springston Landfill – non-complying dumping

On 5 February 2003 Compliance Monitoring Officer Richard Purdon inspected Selwyn

District Council’s Springston landfill to check compliance with consent conditions. The
consent required that only inert ‘cleanfill’ from demolition sites and vegetative green waste
was to be disposed of in the landfill. That condition had not been complied with as tyres,
domestic appliances, domestic waste, corrugated iron, scrap metal, treated fence posts, car
batteries, and an oil drum were found in the landfill. This was the third inspection that
identified non-compliance with the consent condition.
There was the potential risk that contaminants from the non-complying waste would reach
the low water table in the Springston area and enter the groundwater. Richard Purdon gave
a written warning that the material must be removed by 28 February 2003 or enforcement
action would be taken. Selwyn District Council stated that the non-complying waste material
would be removed promptly.
On 6 March 2003 Richard Purdon made a follow up visit to the Springston landfill and found
that all the inappropriate waste except the oil drum was still there. Due to the many warnings
and the potential effects the incident justified formal enforcement action. On 3 April 2003 an
abatement notice was served on Selwyn District Council requiring them to remove the non-
complying waste material. A follow up visit was made on 9 April 2003 with Selwyn District
Council. The abatement notice had been complied with as the offending waste material had
been removed.
5 Conclusion
In the year ended 30 June 2003 the Enforcement Unit responded to 3586 incidents of which
145 were considered to have moderate or worse effects. In addition to the reactive role of
responding to incidents the Enforcement Unit conducted two proactive compliance surveys
of water takes for irrigation use when low-flow restrictions were in force. The results
indicated very high compliance. One water user was prosecuted for an offence. The
operations demonstrated to the community and stake-holders that Environment Canterbury
does effectively enforce resource consent requirements for water use, that there is a high
level of compliance by water users with those requirements and that those who take water
without authorisation will be identified and prosecuted.
Two other 'informations' for prosecutions in respect of illegal water takes were filed with the
Environment Court and have not yet had their hearings. Significant investigations into dust
discharge at the port of Lyttelton and into Environment Canterbury's river works were also
carried out.
The Enforcement Unit issued 43 infringement notices for a range of incidents where there
was either a clear breach of rules or an element of deliberateness. The infringement notice
fines for the year were $25,200. Enforcement officers issued 31 abatement notices, usually
to require compliance with a rule or condition or to require the cessation of activities with
adverse effects. The Enforcement Unit has continued working in partnership with Fish and
Game and land owners over stock in waterways in South Canterbury. Winter air quality and
the outdoor fire ban in winter were well publicised through newspapers, radio, posters and
leaflets.


Appendix 1 Enforcement Unit Staff
Regional Enforcement Officer Bob Simpson
Enforcement Administrator Jackie Jones

Enforcement Officer (Timaru) Lance Corcoran
Enforcement Officer (Christchurch) Ken Baxter
Enforcement Officer (Christchurch) Marty Mortiaux
Enforcement Officer (Christchurch) Norm Marsh
Part time Pollution Hotline response team members Cain Duncan

Phil Abraham
Richard Purdon

Appendix 2 Newspaper clippings

“Pollution skills tested at the Groynes”, courtesy of the Northern Mail, 6 August 2003.
“Environment Canterbury tests water before crying foul over spilt milk” courtesy of The
Press, Christchurch, John Henzell , 19 February 2003.


Glossary
Abatement notice - a written warning to the recipient that he/she is contravening a

provision of the RMA either requiring the cessation of an activity, or that a
particular activity be carried out, to ensure compliance. Section 322 RMA.
Compliance Monitoring - the monitoring of the exercise of resource consents
issued under the RMA and activities permitted by a regional plan, to assess
compliance with conditions.
Contaminant – includes any substance that either by itself or in combination with
other substances, changes the physical, chemical, or biological condition of
the receiving environment when the substance is discharged.
Enforcement Officer - a person authorised as an Enforcement Officer under
section 38 of the RMA.
Enforcement order - an order made by the Environment Court which may require
cessation of an activity which contravenes a provision of the RMA or which
has adverse effects on the environment.
Notice of alleged offence - a notice written at the site of an incident advising
someone that they are being investigated for an alleged offence and that
some immediate action is required.
Infringement notice - a notice issued under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957
for some of the offences specified in the RMA. Infringement notices require
payment of a fine.
Permitted activity - an activity that is allowed by a plan without resource consent if
the activity complies in all respects with any conditions specified in the plan.

Prosecution - the act of taking court proceedings in the criminal jurisdiction for the
commission of an offence created by statute.
PM10 - particles suspended in air and smaller than 10 microns in diameter.
Resource Consent - a consent for an activity that would otherwise contravene the
Resource Management Act 1991, including: land use consent, coastal
permit, water permit and discharge permit.
RMA - the Resource Management Act 1991.
Suspended solids - particles of solid matter in water.
TRP - (Transitional Regional Plan). A document that includes rules, bylaws and
notices that were in effect prior to the enactment of the RMA in 1991. These
now have status as a regional plan under section 368 of the RMA.

R03 37

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

R03 37

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual

Report No. R03/37

Environment Canterbury is responsible for promoting the sustainable management of natural

Richard Johnson Sir Kerry Burke Bill Penno

Environment Canterbury Report 1

2 Environment Canterbury Report

Environment Canterbury Report 3

4 Environment Canterbury Report

1.1 Environmental enforcement

Figure 1.1 Canterbury Region, with territorial authority areas

1.2 The annual environmental incidents and enforcement

1.3 The Enforcement Unit and the Pollution Hotline

Environment Canterbury Report 5

Low flows of the Opihi River and its tributaries

Table 1.1 Location (by district) and receiving environment of environmental

District Air Land Water Coastal Total

6 Environment Canterbury Report

Environment Canterbury Report 7

Low flows of the Opihi River and its tributaries

Potential consequence of incidents No.

8 Environment Canterbury Report

Table 1.4 RMA Compliance & Enforcement Section as at 30 June 2002

Section RMA Compliance & Enforcement

Reporting line Chief Executive

Unit Enforcement Compliance Monitoring

Funding Ratepayer except where fault 100% cost recovery from

Task allocation • Reactive to Pollution Periodic routine monitoring

Staffing – Timaru One Enforcement Officer Seven Compliance

1.4 Incident response and investigation procedures

Environment Canterbury Report 9

Low flows of the Opihi River and its tributaries

1.5 Waterways and water quality

10 Environment Canterbury Report

Table 2.5 Prosecutions from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003

2.2 Operation “Sshh” - survey of water take compliance in

Environment Canterbury Report 11

Low flows of the Opihi River and its tributaries

2.4 Charles Glyn Morris - unauthorised water take

2.5 Operation Tengawai – Environment Canterbury flood

12 Environment Canterbury Report

2.6 Operation Quickset – dust discharge Lyttelton

Environment Canterbury Report 13

Low flows of the Opihi River and its tributaries

Holcim immediately organised a thorough clean-up of all affected properties in Lyttelton,

14 Environment Canterbury Report

P J Butler 15/11/02 Unauthorised drilling of bore Coldstream $300

P J Butler 15/11/02 Unauthorised drilling of bore Coldstream $300

Environment Canterbury Report 15

Low flows of the Opihi River and its tributaries

16 Environment Canterbury Report

3.2 Ashburton Meat Processors Limited - discharge of blood

3.3 Calcon Asphalts - discharge of sediment into the Avon

Enforcement Officer Norm Marsh traced the discolouration to a construction works in

3.4 Mainland Products Limited - discharge of skim milk into

Environment Canterbury Report 17

Low flows of the Opihi River and its tributaries

3.5 AD Argyle and PW Young – discharge dairy effluent

18 Environment Canterbury Report

3.6 Morven-Glenavy & Ikawai Irrigation Company Limited –

3.7 P J Butler - unauthorised drilling of a bore

Environment Canterbury Report 19

Low flows of the Opihi River and its tributaries

3.9 D L Lauder- prohibited driving on the Avon-Heathcote